Biological and health effects of radiofrequency fields: Good study design and quality publications

2016 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 1440

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2016

Study typereview

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Biological and health effects of radiofrequency fields: Good study design and quality publications Vijayalaxmi. Biological and health effects of radiofrequency fields: Good study design and quality publications. dx.doi.org. Highlights • Good study design for in vitro, in vivo and human investigations. • Methods for statistical analyses. • Check-list in quality publications. • Conclusions. Abstract During recent decades, researchers have used several different parameters to evaluate the biological and health effects of in vitro and in vivo exposure to non-ionizing radiofrequency fields in animals, humans and their isolated cells. The data reported in many of publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals were reviewed by the international and national expert groups of scientists for human risk assessment of exposure to radiofrequency fields. The criteria used for such assessment depended on the study design, methodology and reporting of the data in the publication. This paper describes the requirements for good study design and quality publications, and provides guidance and a checklist for researchers studying radiofrequency fields and other environmental agents. Conclusions Investigations on the biological and health effects of RF exposure require close collaboration between biologists and engineers who have expertise in RF exposure assessment. The design of the studies as well as reporting the data in peer-reviewed publications should be of high quality. Detailed description of RF dosimetry is crucial and essential. Independent investigators should be able to replicate/confirm the observations under the same/improved experimental conditions. Such data are invaluable in strengthening the scientific knowledge which is essential for international and national evaluation of risk from RF exposure. sciencedirect.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typereview

Effect directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: unknown

Main findings

The paper describes requirements for good study design and quality publications for studies of biological and health effects of radiofrequency-field exposure, and provides guidance and a checklist. It emphasizes the importance of detailed RF dosimetry, high-quality reporting, and replicability, and notes the value of collaboration between biologists and engineers for exposure assessment.

Outcomes measured

Study design requirements for RF bioeffects research
Quality of reporting/publications (including dosimetry description)
Guidance/checklist for researchers
Statistical analysis methods (general)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Study design requirements for RF bioeffects research",
    "Quality of reporting/publications (including dosimetry description)",
    "Guidance/checklist for researchers",
    "Statistical analysis methods (general)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The paper describes requirements for good study design and quality publications for studies of biological and health effects of radiofrequency-field exposure, and provides guidance and a checklist. It emphasizes the importance of detailed RF dosimetry, high-quality reporting, and replicability, and notes the value of collaboration between biologists and engineers for exposure assessment.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "unknown",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency fields",
    "non-ionizing radiation",
    "study design",
    "dosimetry",
    "quality publications",
    "checklist",
    "risk assessment",
    "in vitro",
    "in vivo",
    "human studies"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2016.09.007
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library